TD 224 
. M4 H38 

1884 




• # ^o o ^ l *v7^!- *V c°' ^ > ? ^ . . t "* ^ ,o* o 0 " 

p: v o/ °^o ^ ^ °* : '*i| 

•*v° \‘S ; / °o 

_*<r *•••*.. <> *> .»••. a* <> <y . *.o. ^ 


\P r ' 

£* *fflE3M~ r 

o o 7/yT^f^vv\r • /-^ v 

* ♦* ^ “W* y 

«<\ if,. '«. . * .6^ 


*<► *'•..* 4 ,C^ y, A, ,G^ *%. A 

’, \ / .^% % A* \ / .0- » % V A* t . 

^’* ^ ’oV 1 ^0< .° <7 ^fe"' ’’oV* .‘]^ 

W «5 °* '^^KS: x 0 -^. ‘.ISUsHo.' /lo. ‘s^sgJSf* iO^, '.fl 


• •?-' -<> ■■ 




° .<T « 

"-‘■o* ;<^fa* *bv* ‘ 

h* p 0 * . 

•* y % *‘^ T ’' / V 7 ^*’ y %. / "V* 

“‘ •*? i’i^* ^ v % .>••. V A ,•**% *> 

aT> « jXWn*. * a a » . AS • ’P. A - ® * ^WTSV A 

-- W *«^* y / .*' 

v*. \wsm: ^ :fOP; ^ 

/ / \ *^K*x^ ^ “.VW A 


^ *?^T* A <v 

- -' ,w^L' •t, c° .• 

* \ 0 < ;' 


<\ 'O . . * .(y 

^ a0^ 0 ° " ° - 


K oV 


y ^ 

r / 0 0 ^ o VW^,* n 0 ^ , 

•* :» V ;A %/ -M: V v ;. 


A. ' ,, '>* jG ? ’ '"•'..•‘’/V <\ "'O. . ** ,G^ 

^ / 6 °" * * "*o 

» * ^ ^ 




■y ^ v- 

V . cv c0 v *1^1% 

» sKa - % A * 

o A^WHflSlfer^ r VV 


't> * 


H ^ ^ 4. 

V'*"^' % y A *•-•• A 0 ' ^ 

. v V vi'i;- %. y v!i^. 

• ^ ' v * /ASS»i^/l.o ^ A * 

° 


%.**'• ••*\< v ^ *'•• **" A* y. 

a°° ^ *•...•• ^ °o. .0° “V 


o N 



* *>> - 77 « 

; °vf> 9 s • 
o V v^ 

* ^ ^ ° t , 

<^> # « * ► * .G 1 

•i' 7 t -‘jj;* ^ a0 v .«--. 


ap/ ^ ^ 

• t 1 4 > 


S* • c$ - s||mS 
• ^ *o.-^» 


4 O 
p ><s 


r\ ▲ 





o V 


kP v 


r\ 







o 

- • ’ a? V' * <rrf« .** \ ‘•rr; • ’ a° V '♦ .T>‘ y 

* v % V vs* .*v> *> v s 

^ '’£* ^ '^' ^ ^ ^ 
*‘vx^ikAr * ^ • w^lPyr * aS* °o^M\ 1 ' i * <r’" V • % 


K. 0 

^ ^<fVV J? V§f8P;* ^ ^ °y^%^* <$' ^ ’ 

<, '•..* j? % vtTT* /v <. -?.*• .o* *b 

•, *1 «* .. ■ • „ ^o .4> . K' . , "V O^ I • ■ •« "*b 

•^;. r. , 0 .’^w. ° .<r *W2?%.\ v. & ,*^v_.'. v. 




- % 
** 0 « 
: ^ °* 


4 O 
,V ^ 

























THE REPLY 


OP THE 




TO 


ITS ASSAILANTS 































THE REPLY 


OF THE 


HAVERHILL AQUEDUCT COMPANY 

TO 


ITS ASSAILANTS. 


DELIVERED BEFORE THE JOINT SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF 
THE HAVERHILL CITY GOVERNMENT, 

JULY 16, 1884. 


BOSTON: 

PRINTED BY RAND, AVERY, AND COMPANY, 










REPLY OF THE HAVERHILL AQUEDUCT COMPANY 
TO ITS ASSAILANTS. 


Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the Committee,— 
The Haverhill Aqueduct Company has come before the com¬ 
mittee as an observer and a participant in these proceedings, 
not to throw any obstacle in the way of the consideration of 
the plain business proposition of a purchase by the city, but, 
in the first place, on account of the extraordinary language 
of the petition filed with the City Council, proposing an 
investigation of “ the methods of business and procedure ” 
of the company, and because of the notorious hostility of 
the prominent instigators of this movement; and, secondly, 
to repel expected attacks upon the company. Moreover, it 
was a courtesy due to the representatives of the city, after 
being duly informed of the pendency of the hearing. It is 
deemed by the company that it is privileged to refute all 
charges preferred against it, and that it is its duty to assist 
the committee by furnishing proper and legitimate information 
for its guidance, as well as to expose any propositions calcu¬ 
lated to mislead or prejudice the committee or the public 
against the Aqueduct Company. The presumption of cer¬ 
tain of the petitioners at the outset, in peremptorily demand¬ 
ing a personal inspection of the affairs, accounts, and books 
of the company, is a fit companion to the audacious and dis¬ 
honest assumption of statement, and impertinent and prying 
disposition, manifested from the beginning. When it is re¬ 
called that the selected mouth-piece at these hearings is a 
litigant in numerous suits-at-law now pending, and has more 
on hand, and is full of enmity towards the company, and his 
assistant is his paid attorney in all these disputes, the prepos- 
terous impudence of this original claim can be thoroughly 



4 


appreciated. As to the remaining petitioners, it is likely that 
new light will reveal to many of them their ridiculous atti¬ 
tude; and it may be said of them in excuse, that they did 
not understand the position the animus of others was leading 
them into. 

The offer of the company to the committee, affording every 
opportunity of inspection for gaining information, and ascer¬ 
taining the history and condition of affairs of the company, 
was made unreservedly. For it is as much in the interest of 
the company to have a revelation of truth to the committee, 
after the misstatements made before it by the petitioners, as 
it is for the committee. A corporate existence of honor for 
eighty-two years can await with composure the effect of the 
bites and stings of snarling foes, and look for vindication in 
any searching of its acts. 

In weighing t,he matters which are submitted to you, it is 
trusted that you will consider the source, the manner in which 
they are presented, and likewise give due consideration to 
the animus which impels this movement. 

It has been deemed necessary to point out to the commit¬ 
tee, that the petitioners represent no considerable body of the 
citizens of Haverhill; and that they are so prejudiced by 
personal hostility, as to be unfit to judge what is for the best 
interest of the city. The assumption of candor in the argu¬ 
ment of the petitioners is calculated to mislead, unless its 
true inwardness is exposed. It has been thought proper to 
make such strictures upon the motives of the petitioners as 
shall place all the facts in the hands of the committee, and 
enable them to see that a desire to despoil individuals of their 
property by representing it as of little or no value, and not a 
wish to benefit the city, lies at the bottom of the whole ques¬ 
tion. While questioning the right of these gentlemen to 
arraign the company, nevertheless a direct refutation of all 
the false charges made against it is here offered. 

The solicitude of these men for the public is instructive; 
and it is a refreshing symptom to behold railroad and bank 
directors, and directors of gas-companies, all extensive own¬ 
ers, posing as champions of public interests, and prating 
against what they see fit to style and berate as a monopoly. 
One would fancy that a private water-company was a new 
monstrosity, and that the knowledge of the existence of 


5 


hundreds of them in the country had not yet been revealed. 
Enterprise has developed such business, and afforded ample 
opportunities for satisfying the thirsty needs of a commu¬ 
nity, where others doubted and tax-payers shrunk, as much 
as in every other undertaking connected with modern 
life. The sole question is, whether a satisfactory and eco¬ 
nomic service is rendered; and that system which accom¬ 
plishes this is the one to be chosen. If, all things considered, 
a municipality can do it, well and good. Experience, how¬ 
ever, does not justify that conclusion. If a private company 
can do it better and cheaper than in any other way, then the 
public is best served. It is a practical question, and the true 
economic position is as stated. The law is abundantly elastic 
and powerful to prevent any encroachment on public rights, 
or oppressive acts. The company is at all times amenable to 
the controlling power of the law. It is idle and ridiculous 
for the statement to be made to the contrary. A public 
franchise is always subordinate to the courts. 

As this controversy has progressed, and the positions of 
these agitators have been taken, one stands almost abashed 
in their presence, “ and feels how awful goodness is.” But 
the import of the facts and figures served up by them is so 
entirely erroneous and grossly misleading, that the mask of 
this stern goodness must be torn away, and the deceit be¬ 
neath uncovered. 

At the beginning, you will remember, }^our attention was 
invited to one who had given twenty years to the study of 
aqueducts, and had investigated in that time nearly, if not 
all, the aqueduct s}^stems in New England. It was a becom¬ 
ing flourish of the trumpet before the curtain was raised, and 
the familiar faces, with the same old stories, were discovered, 
and the same old star-performer, with his old “ tag,” and the 
regular stock company of attendants, was introduced to our 
attention. Having contented himself by his self-indorsement, 
and qualified himself to his own satisfaction, — an easy task, 
— the leading petitioner proceeded as an expert on aqueduct 
law and systems, and an amateur hydraulic engineer, before 
our wondering gaze. It is evident now, that he was selected, 
or volunteered to assume the post, not for having more per¬ 
sonal experience, but as having more personal hostility. It 
can be said of his special education, that his time has been 


6 


wo fully misspent, or he has proved to be an extremely dull 
scholar. 

It is necessary to modestly place the practical experience of 
years, and almost a lifetime, against this exalted and self-es¬ 
teemed experience of twenty years, confused as it must have 
been with attempts at fathoming the known and the unknown, 
both at home and abroad, occasionally trespassing in a neigh¬ 
boring garden for a few faded flowers of literature, and, 
withal, making doubtful empiricism the successful reaper of 
the substantial fruits of life. It is not strange that there was 
no opportunity to And more than a new title for a stale liter¬ 
ary product, which was sought to be palmed upon the public 
as new and genuine until detected by the merciless critic of a 
public journal, and condemned as a proceeding of question¬ 
able ethics. And it is now not surprising, in this last public 
exhibition, that, the extent and influence of his past career 
has driven him on in a course of doubtful propriety. It will 
be shown to your satisfaction, that even in this public 
place, where the responsibility cannot be avoided, there has 
been no hesitation to bend and twist the truth to serve a 
selfish, malicious purpose. 

THE HAVERHILL AQUEDUCT COMPANY. 

The early history of the company has been narrated to 
you; and the tale exhibits the zeal of an antiquarian, with 
the imagination of a composer of fiction. Holy relics are 
said to be in existence in excess of the original articles, and 
the authors of the pious frauds would have found a conge¬ 
nial companion in the fabricator of this fictitious statement. 
The expert author never had access to the authentic records 
or books of the company, nor any other original sources of 
inquiry, and has not even entered its offices for seventeen 
years. Some leading facts, like the existence of the ponds, 
became at some time known to him ; and the powers of 
invention, with the inventor’s sonorous tones, have done the 
rest. It is hardly worth while to review this immaterial 
part of the subject; but, inasmuch as here are found the first 
misstatements, passing attention is given to them. In 1802 
the company was formed, and it is highly gratifying to know 
that the pine logs were bored with “ a long two-inch auger.” 
It is to be regretted that we are not informed by this scien- 


7 


tific gentleman why our ancestors used a two-inch auger 
in preference to one of two inches and a fraction, more or 
less, nor how much the boring cost. But it may be worth 
the saying, to state that the first price for water was not two 
dollars a year for houses and beasts. It was four dollars 
and a half, provided subscription for taking water was made 
before the logs were laid, otherwise it was to be five dollars; 
and an extra charge was made for each additional post: and 
Mr. David How, to whom reference has been made, was 
charged nine dollars. The prices for water varied some¬ 
what, till 1845, when a uniform tariff was made for the ordi¬ 
nary family use; and the rate has not been changed since 
that time. Water, therefore, has not increased so much in 
value as the other articles and necessities of modern times. 

Like the old landmarks, the log aqueduct long since passed 
away; and its history is no longer profitable. The corpora¬ 
tion survived from 1802, and has developed to its present 
condition. In its early life its existence was most precari¬ 
ous. Its earnings were very small, and less than its 
expenses. As the system extended, the expenses exceeded 
the income; and under the present management, for many 
years, it was seemingly a losing venture. But few divi¬ 
dends were paid; and assessments made, vastly exceeded the 
dividends. Nearly all the earnings went into the ground, 
together with a large amount of money raised in the ordi¬ 
nary and proper way. In the mean while, the task was a 
thankless one. The community viewed the venture as 
chimerical, and the individuals engaged in it as foolhardy 
in the extreme. The town scoffed at the idea; and the 
multitude believed that there was then, and there was little 
chance that there ever would be, any use for such a con¬ 
trivance as an aqueduct. The members of the company lost 
their financial standing with the money-lenders; and their 
determined efforts only made them objects of pity to their 
friends, who hoped the infatuation would be short-lived. 
Who can now say how much the existence of the facilities 
for water, afforded through the past history of the town and 
city, has contributed to its progress and present prosperity? 
If at all, then the company is entitled, at least, to some 
credit, and does not deserve the vituperative assaults made 
upon it. During all this time, there has been no burden 


8 


upon tax-payers when they could least afford it, especially 
at a time when they were weighed down by a constant and 
an increasing indebtedness, arising from the war and munici¬ 
pal necessities. 

The relations of the shareholders to the company, their 
contributions to its growth; the expenditures through its his¬ 
tory, whether by assessment or otherwise ; the income ; the 
development of the company’s system; the existence of the 
company’s books, a fact always tauntingly disputed by these 
men, — can be readily learned by the committee, and, by a 
proper examination, all important and necessary matters dis¬ 
closed. You are repeatedly told that there are no books: 
this has been the slanderous tale of years. The evidence of 
your eyes as to these matters is the proof submitted to you, 
the seeing and touching, which will overthrow the gratuitous 
falsehood. These facts are for you, gentlemen of the com¬ 
mittee, but not for the inquisitive Paul Prys, who hope to 
gratify their spirit of curiosity. This information is open 
to the city; and it may be now stated and clearly understood 
that the Haverhill Aqueduct Company will never pass into 
the hands of strangers, or other than the city of Haverhill. 

As the investigation progresses, undoubtedly some views 
will be obtained as to the cost of an extensive aqueduct sys¬ 
tem like this for large cities and places like Haverhill. Com¬ 
parison has been heretofore made, and the relation will be 
continued, with other cities, besides those already mentioned. 
But little dependence can be put upon the figures before 
given you, as examination of the official documents will 
show that they are inaccurate. 

COST OF WATER-WORKS IN OTHER CITIES. 

In order that some notion may be gained of the cost of 
constructing works similar to those of Haverhill, the follow¬ 
ing examples will be of service. In 1869, when the Salem 
water-works were in a condition to give a supply to the city, 
the cost was $1,096,422.59. From this the cost of the reser¬ 
voir may be taken, which was $127,652.28 ; and there is left 
the sum of $968,770.81 for the remainder of the system, which 
is in almost every particular similar to the one in this city. 
The distance of the source of supply is only four and six- 
tenths miles from the city-hall of Salem, not much farther 


9 


than Crystal Lake, which it is now proposed to make use of. 
The population of Salem is not much greater than that of 
Haverhill. In Lawrence, under the same conditions, the cost 
was 11,192,967.84; and after subtracting the cost of the reser¬ 
voir, $275,151.44 (not $1,000,000, as stated by Mr. Abbott), 
there was remaining the sum of $917,816.40; and in this 
instance the water is close at hand. The works were not 
completed at this price. In Lowell the net cost of the 
works Jan. 1, 1884, was $2,850,179.21. In Lynn, the net 
cost at the same time, not including the new supply, was 
$1,088,192.95. None of these appear to be self-sustaining, 
the tax-payers contributing in different ways to their annual 
support; and the net cost of each has steadily increased 
each year. The cost of the high service alone in Haverhill 
was about $100,000, and, it is believed, could not be replaced 
for $150,000. It is a pertinent fact to be noticed, that the 
cost of reservoirs, about which so much is said, is but a 
small share of the whole expense. 

It is amusing, at least, under this head, in the printed 
argument presented to the public, to find a certificate of 
character, as it were, granted to the Wakefield works, which 
has pipes cement-lined, exactly like some of the pipes laid in 
Haverhill, made by the same man, and which are slurred at 
on every occasion, and generally spoken of as an instance of 
incompetent construction. The new 12-inch pipes of this 
kind, lately laid by the company, were all made in Wake¬ 
field, and shipped from that point to Haverhill. This allusion 
is made to point out the animus of the principal assailant on 
all matters touching the Haverhill Aqueduct Company. 

COST BY ESTIMATE. 

In the absence of any definite or accurate knowledge, the 
cost is guessed at by another process. It is done by estimate. 
It may be that the hope is entertained that the random shot 
will bring: out an authoritative and detailed account. As has 
been intimated, that is not necessary for this occasion. The 
speculative effort does not appear to be a happy one. The 
figures given are $138,500 for an aqueduct fully supplied. 
In 1879 this same gentleman, who has assured you, and also a 
dignified committee of the Legislature, that he has extensively 
examined water-works, both in this country and in Europe, 


10 


publicly informed the citizens of Haverhill, that, for $80,000, 
“ an aqueduct, first class in every particular, could be con¬ 
structed, and no repairs to be made for a quarter of a cen¬ 
tury.” With the estimate now given, it is asserted that the 
cost of iron pipe was never lower than at the present time. 
In 1879 it was declared that the cost of pipe was $26 per 
ton. In fact, the price of pipe now is about the same as 
when the city made a large purchase for itself in 1888, pay¬ 
ing about $48 per ton. This estimate is a bubble, and 
breaks at the first breath. But a foam-bell or two of mis¬ 
statement has not distressed this expert in treating this sub¬ 
ject. Fortunately, there is an instance of construction and 
cost close at hand, and, therefore, more readily appreciated. 
The elaborate argument of the petitioners on p. 11 shows that 
the result is based on certain calculations. It is made to ap¬ 
pear that the cost of 12-inch pipe, delivered and laid down, 
would be $9,398 per mile, or $1.78 per foot. According to 
this, the cost of the pipe recently laid by the city should have 
been $14,240. Now, this work has been accomplished at 
our very doors within a few months. It was extremely 
well done under the exacting supervision of Mr. Mansur, re¬ 
cently appointed superintendent of streets, and probably at 
a minimum cost. The whole cost was exactly $30,209.54. 
The cost of laying the pipe was about $28,209. This length of 
pipe was less than two miles, — about 8,000 feet. That is, it 
cost twice the figures given, and at the rate of almost $4 per 
foot. So the estimate fails at the first touch. But, if he is 
correct, has not this conservator of public interests permitted 
a golden moment to slip by, when he might have been the 
cause of saving to the city treasury nearly $16,000 ? Of what 
use is the keenness of one devoted to the public welfare un¬ 
less it can be available at a critical moment like this ? 

It the company has built an aqueduct, which in all its ap¬ 
pointments, tor fulness of supply, and purity of water, is 
unsurpassed, for one-half of what it has cost our neighboring 
cities, does he not give the company credit for an ability in 
construction which he did not intend ? It ought to be satisfied 
at this; but if it has been able to do the work for one-tenth 
of the cost of construction in other places, as his figures indi¬ 
cate, then the company has accomplished a feat which ought 
to attract the attention of aqueduct constructors everywhere. 


11 


It is quite evident, that a knowledge in hydraulic engineer¬ 
ing and aqueduct construction, which is assumed, is likely 
to prove very deceptive if followed. 

In the report of the year 1881 of the Portland Water 
Company, there are found these words: “It has been the 
experience of all cities in bringing water into the city of nearly 
doubling in actual cost the first estimate.” This is a rule of 
general application. This company has a financial history 
of great interest to the people of Portland. The petitioners 
may have built better than they knew if this hearing reveals 
to the people of Portland, by the disclosures and comparisons 
made here, facts which will confer a benefit upon that com¬ 
munity. And the perturbation of the vice-president of the 
company indicates that the spirit of inquiry is abroad there, 
and that there is anxiety to know why their charges are 
higher than in almost every place in New England, and why 
the laws for their protection are not enforced. Those inter¬ 
ested in the Portland works are now engaged in constructing 
similar works in Biddeford and Saco; and, in public negotia¬ 
tions with the government of that city, the treasurer of the 
company stated that the tariff would be about the same as 
in Portland. Mr. John P. Gilman, one of the petitioners 
and vice-president of the Portland company, and also pres¬ 
ident of this new company, stated to your committee that 
this was not so; but the public, printed statement of Mr. 
Westcott, the treasurer, is as good authority the other way. 
The water-works at Biddeford cannot compare with the works 
at Portland in cost, so that the excuse of costly construction 
cannot be used in justification ; and the deduction to be made 
is, that original expense of building does not necessarily fix 
the rates. With these remarkable rates pouring their golden 
stream into the pockets of the owners, it does not lie in the 
mouth of one of them to make complaint against a company 
with far more humanity; and you will find that there must 
be other reasons for his position. Examples will be given of 
the extortionate Portland rates. The petitioners may be un¬ 
wittingly instrumental in gaining some good, in benefiting 
the unfortunate water-takers of Maine ; and thus their mis¬ 
sion will not be in vain. 

There are not wanting numerous cases to prove the rule 
of construction set forth above. The estimated cost of the 


12 


works in Salem, as made by Mr. Slade, an engineer of na¬ 
tional reputation, was $497,332: the actual cost Dec. 1, 
1883, was $1,413,160.54. The estimated cost of the Law¬ 
rence works was $864,067: the total cost Jan. 1, 1884, was 
$1,803,758.46, and not $1,762,832.24, as erroneously stated. 
In Lynn the first estimate in 1870 was $272,345: the cost 
Jan. 1, 1884, was $1,136,408, exclusive of the new supply. 
This was estimated at $77,605, and $100,000 has already been 
expended. The works are not yet completed. Lowell pre¬ 
sents the same instructive lesson, but the first estimate is not 
at hand. The first report in 1874 shows the cost then was 
$1,542,630.88; and the net cost on Jan. 1, 1884, was $2,350,- 
179.21, and not $1,700,000, as incorrectly stated, — an increase 
of cost since 1874, of $807,548.33. Other places repeat the 
same story. In most of them large sums have been annually 
appropriated, which do not appear in the cos'!, from the levied 
taxes, to swell the income, make up deficiencies, and estab¬ 
lish a sinking-fund. The sinking-fund is almost invariably 
fed by taxation. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the 
large appropriations for the municipal departments, all of 
which come directly from taxation, should be debited to the 
cost of water. 


WATER LEGISLATION AND THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE 
COMPANY AND THE CITY. 

It is useless to repeat the history of early contests before 
the General Court, which aroused great personal vindictive¬ 
ness, when, under the disguise of public spirit, personal 
antipathies were manifested. The latest controversy will 
demonstrate all that is pertinent to this inquiry. The rela¬ 
tions of the company and the city are properly to be consid¬ 
ered here. Considerable comment has been made, and it has 
been the constant aim to prejudice the company, because of 
the successful efforts of the company in securing needful 
legislation. In these contests new agencies have been em¬ 
ployed to secure allies, and wage the war. It is a rare thing 
m New England for a great railroad corporation to be em¬ 
ployed as a factor in carrying on a private personal quarrel. 

ree passes over the Boston and Maine Railroad, almost by 
the wholesale, have had their natural influence in cementing 


13 


the strength of the petitioners. The noted places of resort 
in New England, from Rangeley Lakes to the lakes and 
mountains of New Hampshire, and the busy streets of Bos¬ 
ton, have enjoyed the presence of those privileged with 
free rides, participants in this palpable “ discrimination in 
rates;” and, in return, the recipients contribute their pres¬ 
ence and influence in a raid against the Aqueduct Company. 
The free privilege of the road is extended to those employed 
in taking care of the legislative end, and all volunteer allies 
have the same privilege as a price for their encouragement. 
This is clearly an abuse of official position and a “ dangerous 
discrimination ” in the tariffs, to which the attention of the 
railroad commissioners should be at once directed; and the 
shareholders ought to be informed how the property and 
earnings of the road are being employed. So high have 
been the regular rates for passage on this road, as paid by 
the citizens of Haverhill thus discriminated against, and so 
unjust has been the discrimination in the matter of freight 
rates, that it is verily believed that a large section of the 
road is owned by the city “in equity, if not in law.” To 
show that this solemn doctrine of equity has the sanction of 
the petitioners, reference is made to printed argument of the 
petitioners at p. 8. 

It has been the endeavor to lead the public to believe that 
reckless, ruinous attempts were being made to destroy the 
ponds, and compel the water-takers to use impure water. 

These ponds are the natural water-fountains of Haverhill, 
of remarkable purity and great resource. They possess a 
supply of pure water, including Crystal Lake, for at least 
fifty years, if, indeed, they are not practically inexhaustible. 
In the exceptional dry seasons of the past few years, which 
imperilled the water-supply of all New England, of necessity 
the ponds were drawn down, to meet the needs of the people. 
Still, when every spot was on the verge of a water-famine, 
and New York, Boston, and Lynn had a supply for only 
twenty days, by exact computation Haverhill had a con¬ 
tinuous supply of pure water for eight months. Should the 
supply have been stopped, and the people taken their pails 
and buckets to the river? Nature for the time had refused 
her regular and annual supply ; and, in order to meet the pub¬ 
lic exigency, the water in Kenoza Lake was drawn forty-four 


14 


inches below the highest point it had reached in the spring 
of 1883. It was deemed advisable to secure such legislation 
as would place the water-supply of Haverhill on the same 
plane as all other water-companies in the State. The exist¬ 
ence of water-mark legislation was a fruitful excuse for liti¬ 
gation to those mischievously inclined. Land-owners and 
property are abundantly protected by the law without such 
provisions. Moreover, as will appear, the disposition of a 
land-owner at Kenoza Lake showed that some change would 
be needed for the public interest. The public had as deep 
an interest as the company. If a public exigency for water 
exists, it ought to be taken without the possibility of indi¬ 
vidual petty annoyance. No restrictions as to water-marks 
are ever made now. It is left to the judgment of the water- 
company, and subject to the public requirements. The per¬ 
sistent contention by the inspirer of all the trouble is, that 
there is but a slight margin between the points where water 
can be raised or drawn at Kenoza Lake, and that, practically, 
the law allowing the company to take water from Kenoza 
Lake is inoperative. If the city should succeed to the com¬ 
pany’s rights, it will be seen at once that it would be in the 
same predicament. If either control the water, the wants of 
a large community must be uninterruptedly satisfied. It was 
to prevent the people at any time from being subject to the 
vindictive caprice of one man, whose bickering spirit might 
cause trouble to the entire city, that additional legislation 
was asked, to remove any possible source of annoyance. It 
was so understood by the Legislature, and a law was enacted 
to meet the case presented. 

Let us see whether the attitude of the principal petitioner 
has always been unselfish, and for the public good ; and let us 
consider for a moment what would have been the conse¬ 
quences of his efforts within four years, if he had been 
successful. 

Haverhill has at her command but one source of supply of 
pure water, for domestic and fire purposes. For four years, 
and up to 1884, Kenoza Lake has been the chief source of 
supply; the water being pumped into Round and Plug Ponds, 
and thence distributed. If this source had been cut-off, por¬ 
tions of the city connected with the high service would have 
been entirely deprived of water, and the entire city parched 


15 


with thirst in a few days. If low-water mark had been 
established, as claimed, during this time, Kenoza Lake, with 
an area of two hundred and thirty-four acres of water, would 
have been unavailable. In 1880, one of the years of the dry 
season, the leading petitioner sought the courts to enjoin 
the further use of Kenoza Lake (claiming then that low- 
water mark had long before been reached), and thus cutting 
off the supply. His lamentation was solely personal; and his 
wail was for the loss of the “ cascades ” and fountains on his 
experimental farm, as described in his bill in equity, which, 
unhappily, were only of paper existence, and would not be 
generally accepted as of much public benefit. The attempt 
has thus far failed. If he had succeeded, would not his very 
name have been hooted and execrated? Would he have 
dared to lift his voice in this presence ? 

What further interest had the people in this question ? It 
became imperative to increase the water-supply for fire-pur¬ 
poses in the business portion of the city. Accordingly, there 
was expended over thirty thousand dollars for pipes and hy¬ 
drants, on a plan publicly suggested by the treasurer of this 
company, a number of years ago; and the company contributed 
the benefit of its high service, wholly dependent on Kenoza 
Lake, for this special object, also pumps, power, fuel, men, and 
a constant pressure of water, night and day, free of any ex¬ 
pense . The company is not bound to do this. By this same 
gentleman it is contended that “ low-water mark” is reached by 
August in each year; and if he had succeeded, or should ever 
succeed, in maintaining the ground he takes about what he 
sees fit to term “ his lake,” water could not be taken, except 
when the water is above “ low-water mark : ” and at every dry 
season, and any lowering of the water from that and other 
causes, the new fire-extinguishing power would be useless, 
and the whole busmess portion of the city exposed to a sec¬ 
ond destruction. Not one of the new fire-hydrants, nor 
any hydrant connected with the high service, would be 
available to avert disaster. Ownership by the city would 
make no difference, — the city could have no greater privi¬ 
lege. The insurance companies at once would bring this 
subject home to you, by touching your pockets. Every effort 
has been made by this same person to make the possibility 
referred to a terrible reality, which might annoy or cripple 


16 


a striving community. This, assuredly, was blind preju¬ 
dice and selfishness, not public spirit. The practical wisdom 
of the water-committee of the Legislature was greater than 
the paraded, so-called science of the opposition, and a prac¬ 
tical cure of a possible evil, afforded ; and now the city, 
whether owner or not, will enjoy the amplest protection. 
The company, in order to protect the ponds near the city as 
much as possible, and Kenoza Lake especially, sought Crystal 
Lake as a further supply, asking for that and other needed 
legislation, and volunteering that it should be conditioned on 
going to Crystal Lake within the time necessary to construct 
the required works. Still, it is even now falsely persisted 
that the company’s movement in that direction was a blind, 
and the most mercenary motives are insinuated. 

PURITY. 

It is charged that the management of the company has 
been so poor that the ponds are in danger of destruction, 
and that the waters are impure, and unfit for use. Here 
science selects its own ground. It may seem presumptuous 
to venture to trespass upon the special prerogative of a peti¬ 
tioner, who also understands all about the aqueduct systems 
of the world. However, there are reasons for confidence 
in stating that this is only a little ballooning in science, 
and that a slight puncture will explode the distended fabric. 
It is observed that the attack on the company, in its treatment 
of the ponds, shifts from time to time from one untenable 
position to another. In 1879 this gentleman informed us 
that “ the low-water mark was designed to protect the inter¬ 
ests of the owners of property upon the shores, and also to 
save from destruction the ponds.” The ponds not submit¬ 
ting to destruction on account of the acts of the company, 
as predicted in 1888, low-water mark was said to be in 1884, 
for the purpose of preventing “ low-stage impure waters” from 
being delivered to the people. The first ground, undoubtedly, 
was abandoned because it betrayed too much personal inter¬ 
est. In 1879 this same gentleman, with profound wisdom, 
informed us that “ the waters of the beautiful ponds around 
our cities are held in place only by a strata of blue clay, 
shale, and grits. This strata is impervious to water, and 
holds the contents of the little basins between the hills, as a 


17 


saucer holds tea infusion poured into it. Dig through this 
strata, or allow it to crack in a number of places, and the con¬ 
tents of the ponds would gradually disappear, — the ponds 
would no longer exist. If the company is permitted to draw 
off the water of these ponds to a low point, the shores be¬ 
come dry and heated, the clay contracts, fissures form in it, 
and leaks are made which permanently lower the level of the 
water. ... If the pumping from Kenoza is allowed in ordi¬ 
nary dry seasons, that beautiful lake will permanently suf¬ 
fer ; and, if the abuse is continued and increased, we may 
bid farewell to the ponds, which are our pride and boast” 
(Dr. James R. Nichols, in “Haverhill Gazette” of that year, 
over a nom de plume). And the hills round about Kenoza’s 
shores have been taught to echo ever since the repeated cry, 
“ It will never come back again ! ” The basin of the ponds 
will crack, forsooth, like an old earthen bowl, or have an out¬ 
let like a perforated tin kettle, and through the “ leak ” the 
water will pour to the cavernous depths below! Can there 
be a vast hole in the interior of the earth, to serve as a 
receptacle for the leakage? If so, can the petitioner inform 
us what are its dimensions of depth and breadth? Have we, 
then, a hole in the earth as a counterpoise to the famous 
“hole in the sky” of political scientific memory? Or will 
the water pour through the “leaks” to the land of the 
antipodes, and, perchance, flood the rice-fields of the Mongo¬ 
lians? But, in the face of this declaration and prophecy of 
pseudo science, Nature has kindly replenished her stores; 
and the ponds are now higher than for many years, and 
Kenoza has a height greater than after the dam was aban¬ 
doned by Mr. Hale, and before a drop was taken for the use 
of the company or the city. No examination need be made 
by the committee to ascertain the cost or scientific manner of 
stopping the “ leaks ” in making an estimate of probable 
price. 

The questions of the quantity of water at our command, anu 
its fitness for use, are taken together. They are some of the 
rotten fagots in the bundle of charges. It has been stated 
that the limit of these ponds “ was reached more than five 
years ago.” If a fact can be of any service, or carry any 
conviction, to one supposed, on his own showing, to already 
possess a marvellous knowledge, the knowledge that practi- 


18 


cally no water was taken from Kenoza till 1880, when the 
high service was completed, may be of value to the petitioner 
in making another statement. 

It was deliberately asserted before the Legislature, that the 
water now in use tor nearly twenty years had become unlit 
for domestic uses; that the gradual deterioration for the past 
twenty years was surprising; and that the solid matter con¬ 
tained in an imperial gallon was forty-seven grains, and that 
twenty years ago it was as low as seven grains. It is now sub¬ 
stantially reproduced, and the obvious intent is to charge the 
company with furnishing impure water. If these waters are 
pure, and fit for use, they will be taken advantage of so long 
as they remain pure and healthful. Permission will never 
be granted that they may remain in indolent, slumbering 
beauty, to adorn the broad acres of an abutting owner. 
Kenoza was never intended for such ignoble use. 

The quality of the water has ever been of the best; and 
it has been the boast of our people, that, at all seasons, the 
purity of the water-supply has suffered little or no variation. 
If such changes have been going on, according to the delib¬ 
erate utterance of science as applied to water-subjects, it 
would be evident now. Repeated analyses (to refute some 
doubtful , alleged ones) made by competent persons have only 
added to the knowledge which the humblest citizen already 
possessed of its good quality; and it will take more than the 
unsupported assertion of an analysis of the leader in this 
attack, and who is not generally known in tribunals of justice, 
at least, as a skilled expert, to convince the water-takers of 
Haverhill, with their experience of nearly twenty years, that 
what they have used so long, and are now using, is impure 
and unfit. 

In the month of February, 1867, when the water in Plug 
Pond was at a lower stage than ever before or since, having 
been lowered to set the main, the water* was analyzed by A. 
A. Hayes, State Assayer, with the following result: “ One 

United-States standard gallon contained 8.576 grains of solid 
matter. It is an excellent water for domestic purposes, 
and among the best; ” also, “ and among the best known for 
general purposes, as they partake of the character of both 
spring and pond water.” A report of an analysis was signed 
by James R. Nichols & Co., manufacturing chemists, Feb. 


19 


7, 1867. This was carefully preserved, not for its intrinsic 
merit or value, but for such an occasion as this. It showed 
of solid constituents 3.95 grains to a gallon. The water 
was said to be of “remarkable purity,” and “for all the 
purposes of household employment, of unusual excellence, 
holding a less amount of earthy and mineral salts and vegeta¬ 
ble matter than is usually found in New-England ponds and 
rivers.” What has been the lesson of time? In 1878 there 
was some talk about the impurity of the water in Plug Pond ; 
and the Board of Health of the city, Charles E. Wiggin, 
chairman, caused an analysis April 24, 1878. A report was 
made by the analyst, S. Dana Hayes of Boston, State As- 
sayer. The amount of solid constituent grains was 3.08 
grains for a gallon. It was pronounced water of unusual 
purity in both quality and kind of substances present. It is 
also purer than the waters supplied to the largest cities of 
this country.” So far, the health of no one is imperilled. 
In 1884 it became important to study them again. A gallon 
of Plug-pond water was given to Professor Edward S. Wood 
of the Harvard Medical School, a gentleman of extensive 
experience, and recognized as one of the most thorough 
experts on these matters in the country. This was done as 
late as possible, so that the analysis might be had in a summer 
month. On June 13 of this year the analysis showed, that, 
in the various elements, the change since 1867 was slight: 
of solids, there were 3.30 grains (in 1867, by Nichols, 3.95 ; 
by Hayes, 3.576) ; and the total organic and inorganic was 
5.20 grains, in every respect less apparent impurity than in 
1867. Moreover, it was pronounced “an excellent surface 
water, suitable for drinking and other domestic purposes.” 
That is to say, that, in the course of these years, the water 
survives o competent test, showing the water not to have 
changed for the worse. The statements so broadly given 
indicate either ignorance or wilful perversion, which call for 
charity, or demand rebuke. 

Before the Legislature last winter, it was urged, by those 
of the petitioners who were there, and chiefly by the so-called 
scientist of their number, that the people of Haverhill should 
have been furnished long ago with the water of the Merri¬ 
mack River, and that this source should be resorted to now, 
as the water was pure and healthful, and the river “ offered 


20 


extraordinary facilities for water.” It was then asserted, that 
the only water available in the ponds was the “ surplus water ” 
coming from the “ winter-snows and heavy spring-rains,” 
which was “ exhausted in three months, so that what is prop¬ 
erly called low-water mark is reached by July or August of 
each year; ” and that what is drawn from the ponds, except 
late in winter and in spring, is unsuited to domestic uses, — 
that for these reasons the people should be driven to take 
the marvellously pure waters of the river! This has been 
loudly declared since. It being stated as a scientific proposi¬ 
tion, that the water of the river is self-purifying from its flow, 
and therefore adapted as a substitute for the ponds for do¬ 
mestic purposes, some impression may have been made by 
these uncontrolled assertions. The condition of the water 
in the ponds has been already demonstrated. 

The water of the river reaches Haverhill under circum¬ 
stances commonly understood. With a hundred thousand 
water-closets and sinks, and a hundred thousand urinals, dis¬ 
charging into it; with the drainage of slaughter-houses, and 
the accumulation of every kind of garbage ; with carcases of 
animals, and every form of pollution, thrown into it; with 
the contaminating filth of a multitude of manufactories 
pouring into it; with the drainage and sewage of numerous 
large cities and many towns poisoning it, — it is rapidly being 
converted into a vast, convenient sewer. It requires only the 
exercise of common sense to satisfactorily dispose of the 
problem of its fitness for domestic use. If this abuse is 
unrestrained, the continued use of this water by two of our 
neighboring cities farther up the stream, already question¬ 
able, will soon be a very serious matter. 

But we will go farther. This question of the use of river- 
water, in the condition of the Merrimack, has been the 
subject of skilful, unprejudiced scientific inquiry, and the 
popular notions propagated by irresponsible empiricists com¬ 
pletely overturned. 

The State Board of Health, alive to the questions of water 
supply and drainage, with the assistance of the most compe¬ 
tent experts known, have made a most careful study of this 
question, and in an exhaustive report say, 44 It is a wide¬ 
spread popular idea, that no matter how much impurity is 
discharged into a running stream, yet, by a dozen miles or so, 




21 


the stream will, for all practical purposes, free itself from the 
impurity, and become fit for use, even as a source of water- 
supply. It has been alleged that the organic matter is almost 
completely oxidized by the oxygen of the air, and by 
that dissolved in the water, and that this oxidizing action 
is very much increased if the water is agitated by passing 
over weirs and falls : ... it is, however, unsupported by 
direct proof; in fact, the experimental evidence leads us 
to the contrary opinion. The Rivers Pollution Commis¬ 
sion (of Great Britain) made this question the subject of 
direct investigation, and showed very conclusively that the 
commonly received opinion was erroneous.” As a result 
of the experiments made by the Rivers Commission, they 
affirm, “ It is evident, that, so far from sewage mixed with 
twenty times its volume of water being oxidized in a flow 
of ten or twelve miles, scarcely two-thirds of it would be 
so destroyed in a flow of 168 miles, at the rate of one 
mile per hour, or after the lapse of a week. In fact, whether 
we examine the organic pollution of a river at different 
points in its flow ; or the rate of disappearance of the 
organic matter of sewage when the latter is mixed with fresh 
water, and violently agitated in contact with air; or, finally, 
the rate at which dissolved oxygen disappears in water 
polluted with five per cent of sewage, — we are led in each 
case to the inevitable conclusion, that the oxidization of the 
organic matter in sewage proceeds with extreme slowness, 
even when the sewage is mixed with a large volume of 
unpolluted water, and that it is impossible to* say how far 
such water must flow before the sewage matter becomes 
thoroughly oxidized. It will be safe to infer, however, from 
the above results, that there is no river in the United King¬ 
dom long enough to effect the destruction of sewage by 
oxidization.” And Sir Benjamin Brodie, in his evidence 
before the Commission, said, “ I should say that it is simply 
impossible that the oxidizing power, acting on sewage running 
in mixture with water over a distance of any length , is suffi¬ 
cient to remove its noxious quality. I presume that the 
sewage can only come in contact with oxygen from the 
oxygen contained in the water, and also from the oxygen on 
the surface of the water; and we are aware that ordinary 
oxygen does not exercise any rapidly oxidizing power on 


22 


organic matter. I believe that an infinitesimally small 
quantity of decaying matter is able to produce an injurious 
effect upon health ; therefore, if a large proportion of organic 
matter was removed by the process of oxidization, the quan¬ 
tity left might be quite sufficient to be injurious to health. 
With regard to oxidization, we know, that, to destroy organic 
matter, the most powerful oxidizing agents are required : w'e 
must boil it with nitric acid and chloric acid, and the most 
perfect chemical agents. To think to get rid of organic 
matter by exposure to the air for a short time is absurd.” 
The State Board, in expressing their own conclusions on this 
subject, say that they cannot do better than quote the words 
of Dr. Frankland, the most eminent chemical authority on 
the sewage question: 44 There is no process practicable on 
the large scale by which noxious material (sewage matter) 
can be removed'from water once so contaminated, and there¬ 
fore I am of opinion that water which has once been contami¬ 
nated by sewage or manure matter is thenceforth unsuitable 
for domestic use.” The State Board in a most thorough 
manner tested the quality of the waters of the rivers in the 
State, and declared that the waters of the Merrimack below 
Lowell 44 would not be recommended as a source of a supply 
for a city.” It is to be hoped that this community will hear 
no more absurd talk about supplanting the use of the pure 
water of our ponds by the spoiled and polluted water of the 
river. 

INCOME. 

It would be unprofitable to follow the speculations as to 
the income of the company. Idle conjecture is of little or 
no value. The calculations made are only the vagaries of 
one who has no trustworthy basis. It is simply untrue, that, 
in 1867, it was shown at any time or place that the income 
was $30,000. This subject has been spoken of before ; and it 
only remains now to be added, that the records of the com¬ 
pany contain an absolute refutation of what has been de¬ 
clared. 

But one example has been given of the maintenance in 
other cities, that of Lynn. And it may be fairly presumed 
that it was selected because it best suited the purposes of 
the person offering it. No notice was taken of the construc¬ 
tion and interest accounts, which are alike a part of the yearly 


23 


expense. And, as appears in the official report of the year 
1882, 44 the interest charges increase with the yearly increase 
of the water-debt,” — a confession worthy of note. The net 
cost of Lynn works, up to Jan. 1, 1884, was 11,088,192*95 
exclusive of the new supply; and the cost of maintenance 
alone in 1883 was $21,546.14. Why was not this year chosen, 
unless it was the purpose to pick out a year which gave fig¬ 
ures best adapted to the cause of the petitioners? Why was 
the cost at a certain year selected, and the expense of main¬ 
tenance for a different one chosen, when the figures ran low, 
unless it was to manipulate the record for purposes of decep¬ 
tion? The net increase of the cost of the works in Lynn 
for the past year has been $52,322.52. The increase of the 
debt thus far is constant. Every thing which relates to this 
particular can be understood when the details are sought and 
examined. 

WATER-RATES. 

In carefully and candidly comparing the water-rates of one 
place with another, it is difficult to do exact justice. A fair 
comparison cannot be made between municipal water-com¬ 
panies and a private company, because the water-payer in 
the last instance gets his whole rate on his water-bill: in the 
first case the largest part appears on his tax-bill, and his 
water bill does not tell the whole story. It is not fair to 
compare with a single one of exceptional high rates, nor with 
one of extremely low rates. 

In one place, subjects of comparison may be high; in 
another, the same things low, and vice versa. The scale may 
be, as a whole, very uneven. There may be a greater and 
more extended variety of rates in different places, materially 
affecting the aggregate income. The contribution of the mu¬ 
nicipality to the income, oftentimes a very large sum, unques¬ 
tionably affects the rates. If it were not for this, in many of 
the places used as standards of comparison, the rates would 
be much higher. In these instances, the difference is not 
visible on the water-bill, as already suggested, but appears on 
the tax-roll. No effort has been made to get exact acquaint¬ 
ance with the Haverhill rates by any one connected with the 
petitioners. If they had been as zealous at home as they 
seem to have been abroad, the result would have been differ¬ 
ent. A few questions properly directed might have affected 


24 


the argument of the petitioners. But justice was not sought: 
spite controlled. The charges in Haverhill are made through¬ 
out as uniform as possible, and it is sought to give a low price 
for a very liberal supply of water. It is certain, that if our 
water-takers were compelled to pay the rates of other cities, 
and had added to their tax-bills an additional rate, their mur¬ 
murs would be loud and deep. For example, the rates in 
Salem have not been changed since 1869. They were put 
very low, and the balance charged to taxation. Every year 
there has been an appropriation for water-account. When 
the rates were made, it was said by the chairman of the water- 
board, Hon. Willard P. Phillips, when he formally passed the 
works to the city, Gen. Cogswell, mayor, “ The city council 
have fixed what are mere nominal rates, as the rates which 
will yield the greatest revenue: meanwhile, therefore, our 
citizens must pay in taxes this deficiency in revenue, which 
is equivalent, with our present valuation, to a tax of $3.25 
per $1,000.” This has continued through these years, sub¬ 
ject only to the changes of valuation. The official com¬ 
munication from Salem to this scholar in aqueduct matters, 
when he was preparing his last lesson, has not been heard by 
the committee; and the above quotation has been slipped by. 

In Newburyport, a city not differing much in size from 
Haverhill, with many similarities, with works costing $314,- 
374.86, — much less than the cost of the Haverhill works,— 
with 936 consumers, and a tribute from the city of $6,000 
for fire-purposes, and for other public purposes a sum equal 
to*the whole amount of the company’s taxes, the rates are 
admitted to be greatly in excess of those here. A compari¬ 
son here is fair. With a similar plant of certainly much less 
cost, and with so large a contribution, it would seem that the 
rates should be lower. It is well understood, by those prac¬ 
tically acquainted with water-works, that rates are based, 
everywhere, upon a standard as nearly common as can be 
secured. 

In Haverhill, the charge for each horse and carriage, with 
water, including hose for washing carriages, in stable, is $3. 
A hose is almost indispensable, and is generally used in a 
respectable stable. In every other instance, so far as known, 
the use of hose is not included in the first charge; and the 
rates are as follows : — 


Holyoke, 

Concord, 

Taunton, 

$2 for each horse, 

2 u it it 

4 “ first horse, 

25 

Each 

additional 

horse. 

($1.50) 

Hose. 

$3.00 

3.00 

5.00 


Total. 

$5.00 

5.00 

9.00 

Springfield, 

4 

u 

ii 

ii 

( 2.00) 

5.00 


9.00 

Lawrence, 

3 

ii 

ii 

it 

( 2.00) 

2.50 


5.50 

Lowell, 

4 

tt 

it 

ii 

( 2.00) 

3.00 


7.00 

Lynn, 

5 

tt 

ii 

ii 

( 3.00) 

4.00 


9.00 

Brockton, 

4 

ii 

ii 

ii 

( 2.00) 

6.00 


10.00 

Malden, 

5 

it 

ii 

ii 

( 3.00) 

3.00 


8.00 

Cambridge, 

5 

it 

i i 

ii 

( 3.00) 

5.00 < 

| 50 cts. for each j 

1 10.00 

Newton, 

5 

ii 

ii 

it 

( 3.00) 

3.00 ( 

[ additional horse- j 

f 8.00 

Lewiston, 

3 

it 

it 

ii 

( 3.00) 

2.00 


5.00 

Newport, 

8 

it 

i l 

it 

( 4.00) 

8.00 < 

\ $3.00 for each ' 

) 16.00 

New bury port, 

8 

ii 

ii 

ii 

( 4.00) 

8.00 l 

! additional horse. ! 

\ 16.00 

Haverhill, 

3 

it 

ii 

ii 

( 3.00) 

no charge, 

3.00 


The last three are private companies. 

It has been learned, by examination of the list of water- 
takers in Haverhill, that the average of the families is four, 
and not the number six, which has been used ; but the com¬ 
parison will be made in as many aspects as possible. 

It is important to remember, that, in other places, the 
family-rate is limited, generally, to the use of one faucet. 
It rarely happens now, except in the most ordinary dwell¬ 
ings, that more are not used. This is a charge not made in 
Haverhill; and family-takers are not limited in the number 
used, or the basins or sinks. This must not be lost sight of. 
When a charge in a family in Haverhill reaches $25, that 
price is not exceeded, no matter how many faucets, bath¬ 
tubs, water-closets, or other uses, there may be in the dwell¬ 
ing ; and it also includes stable, with horses, hose for the 
same, and hose for garden and washing windows. (The use 
of hose is restricted.) It is alleged that a charge of this kind 
is not known in Haverhill, but the slightest effort would have 
brought this fact to the attention of the active petitioners. 
A charge so moderate as this is not known anywhere else. 
No charges are made for a second water-closet or bath-tub, 
nor for self-closing urinals, usually placed in offices and stores 
in connection with a water-closet; nor for water for steam¬ 
heating in dwellings, although they appear as items on the 
schedule referred to. This latter charge appears to be made 
in many places, and ranges from $1 to $5. All of these items 
of charge are rigidly adhered to everywhere else. 







26 


The comparative annual charges for a family, without re¬ 
gard to the number of persons, or number of faucets, bath¬ 
tubs, sinks, or water-closets, including stable, and hose for 
stable and garden, are as follows: — 


Cambridge 







. 


$31.00 

Lynn 









34.00 

Lawrence . 









32.00 

Taunton . 









31.00 

Newton 









33.00 

Malden 









28.00 

Lewiston . 









30.00 

Brockton . 









30.00 

Portland . 









40.00 


When this sum is reached in Portland, a special rate is 
charged: and, on inquiry at the office from the clerk in charge, 
it was learned, that, when they get as high as forty dollars, 
“they squeeze all'they can get out of ’em; ” and all who are 
personally acquainted with the business habits of the vice- 
president of the company, will believe, that, after the lemon 
is squeezed, there is not much juice left. Most of our older 
citizens will remember, that, in a land-squeezing operation 
with the city, not even the seeds were left. 


Salem 
Lowell 
Manchester 
Concord . 
Bangor . 
Springfield 


no family-rate. 
<< << (< 

<< u u 

“ n n 

u n 
a a i< 


Rates according to schedule; but in detail these charges are 
much in excess of Haverhill. 


New bury port.$68.00 

Newport.93.00 

Haverhill ......... 25 00 

Taking families in moderate circumstances, who have no 
expensive fixtures in their dwellings, comparisons will be 
made. Many families live here in double tenements; and 
in such cases, as is well known to many of the petitioners, 
they have the option of paying six dollars for a family, with¬ 
out limit as to persons, or the schedule-rates. This practice is 
uniform, and has always prevailed. In all cases, it includes 
any number of faucets, sinks, and washbowls. In other places, 

















27 


these seem to be treated as luxuries, and charged for accord¬ 
ingly. In tenements of two or more families, where there is 
a water-closet for each, the proprietor paying for the same, the 
family-price is nine dollars, and always has been. 

In single dwellings for families of six, the rates are, — 


In Lawrence, one sink and basin 

each additional person 
“ “ sink 

“ “ basin 

Lowell, two sinks and two basins 
each additional person . 

“ “ sink 

“ “ basin . 

Newton, first faucet . 

each additional faucet 
Lynn, first faucet 

each additional faucet 
Cambridge, first faucet 

each additional faucet 
Brockton, first faucet 

each additional faucet 
Taunton, first faucet 

each additional faucet 
Malden, first faucet . 

each additional faucet 
Newburyport, first faucet . 

each additional faucet 

Portland. 

and valuation of property, probably making it twenty 
dollars on an average. 

Newport, first faucet ........ 

each additional faucet ...... 

Lewiston, one faucet. 

additional faucets, special terms. 

Haverhill, without regard to the number of faucets, sinks, 
basins, or set washbowls • 

Generally hot and cold water faucets count as one. 


$5.00 

.50 

1.00 

.50 

6.00 

.50 

1.00 

.50 

6.00 

2.00 

6.00 

2.00 

5.00 

2.50 

6.00 

2.00 

5.00 

2.00 

6.00 

2.00 

8.00 

3.00 

12.00 


9.00 

3.00 

5.00 


8.00 


By this method, the revenue in the above places is greatly 
in excess of Haverhill: for, in Haverhill, the service is ob¬ 
viously much more liberal; as there are not twenty-five 
families, coming under this schedule of rates, to wit, $8, 
which pay the amount stated. If the rates are so arranged 
that they may be increased by adding a sum for each faucet 
above one, the price for water for a family will be affected in 
a marked degree, and the aggregate income largely increased. 









28 


The number six was taken because this number was selected 
by the petitioners, and the company is willing to meet them 
on their chosen ground. But practically, in Haverhill, the 
average family-rate, on this basis, is six dollars. 

But it is in the following comparison that the rates will be 
found which affect the average citizen of moderate means. 

Tables are here presented for six persons in dwellings con¬ 
taining fixtures which very many families possess, the number 
of which is increasing yearly: — 


Lawrence. Two basins and two sinks.$6.50 

Each additional basin .... $0.50 

Each additional sink ...... 1.00 

First water-closet.4.00 

Each additional water-closet . . . . . 1.50 

Slop-closet.2.00 

Heating-apparatus . . . . . . . 1.50 

Bath-tub '. 3.00 

Each additional bath-tub . . . . 2.00 

Total.$18.50 

Lowell. Two basins and two sinks ...*.. $6.00 

Each additional one a charge. 

First water-closet.4.00 

Second water-closet ....... 2.00 

Bath-tub ......... 3.00 

Each additional bath-tub .... $1.00 

Slop-closet (special). 

Heating-apparatus. 2.00 


T °tal.$17.00 

Lynn. Two faucets.$8.00 

First water-closet. 5 00 

Second water-closet . 3 qq 

Slop-closet (special). 

Heating-apparatus (special). 

Bath-tub. qq 

Each additional bath-tub . . . . $3.00 


Total .... 

Springfield. Dwelling 

First water-closet . 

Second water-closet 
Heating apparatus, no charge 
Slop-closet (special). 

Bath-tub 

Each additional bath-tub 


. $21.00 

$8.00 

4.00 

2.00 


* 2.00 


4.00 


Total 


















29 


Taunton. Dwelling, two faucets 


# , 

$7.00 

First water-closet .... 


# # 

5 00 

Second water-closet .... 

# 


2.50 

Heating-apparatus (special). 

Slop-closet (special). 

Bath-tub. 


, 4 

3 00 

Each additional bath-tub . 

• 

$2.00 


Total. 

. 

. 

$17.50 

Brockton. Two faucets. 



$8.00 

First water-closet .... 

# 

# 9 

4.00 

Second water-closet .... 


, 

2.00 

Heating-apparatus (special). 

Slop-closet (special). 

Bath-tub. 



5 00 

Each additional bath-tub . 


$3.00 


Total. 



$19.00 

Malden. By family-rate ..... 



$20 00 

Cambridge. By family-rate .... 



$18.00 

Melrose. By family-rate. 



$19.00 

Newton. By family-rate ..... 



$25.00 

Newburyport. Two faucets .... 



$11.00 

First water-closet 



6.00 

Second water-closet 



4.00 

Heating-apparatus, no charge. 

Bath-tub. 



6 00 

Each additional bath-tub 


$4.00 

. * 

Slop-closet. 



4.00 

Total. 



$31.00 

Newport. Two faucets. 



$12.00 

First water-closet .... 



6.00 

Second water-closet .... 



4.00 

Bath-tub. 



6.00 

Each additional bath-tub . 


$4.00 


Slop-closet. 



4.00 

Heating-apparatus, no charge. 

Total. 



$32.00 

Portland. Dwelling. 



$12.00 

First water-closet .... 



6 00 

Second water-closet .... 



3.00 

Slop-closet and heating-apparatus, not scheduled. ' 


Bath-tub. 



5.00 

Each additional bath-tub . 


$2.50 



Total . 


. $26.00 














30 


To this should be added a rate based upon the valuation 
of property, a method peculiar to Portland. 

Haverhill. Single dwelling with six persons. Water for dwell¬ 


ing, without regard to faucets, bowls, or sinks . $8.00 

First water-closet.5*00 

Second water-closet, no charge. 

Slop-closet, no charge. 

Heating-apparatus, no charge. 

Bath-tub.3.00 

Second bath-tub, no charge. 


Total.$16.00 

This shows a rate for Haverhill far below the other cities. 
But there are very few cases where the first item is charged, 
namely, a charge based upon a family of six. 

But with families occupying double houses, or where there 
are two or more families occupying the same house in tene¬ 
ments arranged for them, the fairness and cheapness of the 
rates are evident. In such cases, the family-rate for the 
above fixtures, exclusive of water-closets and bath-tub, and 
without regard to the basins, would be, $6.00; with water- 
closets, $9.00 ; with bath-tubs and water-closets, $12.50. 

Recapitulated we have, — 


Lawrence.$18.50 

Lowell.17.00 

Lynn .21.00 

Springfield.18.00 

Taunton.17.50 

Brockton.19.00 

Malden. 20.00 

Cambridge.18.00 

Newburyport.31.00 

Newport.32.00 

Portland, exclusive of valuation.26.00 

Haverhill, single dwelling, six persons.16.00 

“ “ average family-rate . . . . 13.00 

“ double “ without water-closets or bath-tubs . 6.00 

“ tenement with water-closets, each . . . 9.00 

“ “ “ “ “ and bath-tubs, each . 12.50 


The uniformity of the rates of most of these places is 
noticeable, and the natural inference is that rates are fixed 
without regard to the cost of the supply. For in the case 
of Malden, where the water flows by gravitation, the charge 
is twenty dollars, a rate higher than in some other places. 













31 


Take the aggregate income for further illustration, and the 
contrast appears more striking. The gross income of Cam¬ 
bridge from water-rates in 1883 was $179,361.89. Her popu¬ 
lation is about fifty-two thousand, or a little more than double 
that of Haverhill; and the income is much more than four 
times as much as the gross income from water-takers in Hav¬ 
erhill. In Portland, with less than twice the population of 
Haverhill, the gross income is over $130,000, or more than 
three times the income of the Haverhill company. 


KATES IN HAVERHILL FOR PETITIONERS COMPARED WITH 
RATES OF OTHER PLACES. 

Of the petitioners, the following would pay in all of the 
places above mentioned the highest family-rates for their 
own dwellings, and in each case a sum higher than the high¬ 
est family-rate in Haverhill ($25). See p. 26. 

W. R. Whittier, A. A. Sargent, 

James R. Nichols, John B. Nichols, 

J. J. Marsh, C. W. Chase, 

R. Stuart Chase, J. P. Gilman. 

What they pay in Haverhill, will appear in the following 
table. Also what they would be compelled to pay by the 
Portland rates, if it could be “squeezed out of ’em.” This 
estimate is absolutely correct. 


Haverhill Rate. 

Names. 

Portland Rate. 

$18.00 

Warner R. Whittier. 

$69.88 

20.00 

James R. Nichols. 

69.00 

20.00 

J. J. Marsh. 

88.75 

13.00 

James E. Gale. 

34.00 

22.00 

R. Stuart Chase. 

73.50 

22.00 

A. A. Sargent. 

68.00 

15.00 

D. W. Holden ^. 

John B Nichols. 

34.00 

18.00 

52.50 

22.00 

C. W. Chase . 

51.00 

22.00 

John P. Gilman . 

63.00 


Considerable effort has been made to ascertain fully as to 
the works at Lewiston; but, for some inexplicable reason, it 
has been impossible to get more than the schedule and a 
letter from the superintendent, which says he has no copy 
of any report which would give any information about the 




















32 


works. But enough has been learned from these two sources 
to call attention to the adroit methods used in making a com¬ 
parison for your instruction. The impression sought to be 
conveyed, was that the cost of the works was small, namely, 
$297,000, and that the water-rights were not of much account. 
The superintendent writes that the entire cost of the works 
was $500,000. The water is pumped by water-power, which 
is inexpensive. It appears by the schedule of rates, that 
some charges are higher than here, particularly the family- 
rate above referred to, of $30. But it is more significant to 
learn that the city pays to the company a considerable sum 
for water for public purposes, the fire-hydrants alone paying 
$40 each; and $5,000 each year is raised by taxation for the 
sinking-fund. By a letter in the possession of the committee, 
but which was not read by the petitioners, it will be learned 
that last year Lewiston paid $5,600 for fire-hydrants, $5,000 
for construction, and $5,000 for sinking-fund. To this must 
be added the amount paid for water for other public pur¬ 
poses. It is safe to say that the total would be $18,000, all of 
which was paid by taxation, and should be charged to cost 
of water. So that, in Lewiston, taxation more than makes 
up for any apparent difference in rates. 

COMPARATIVE STORE-RATES. 

The rules, as practically enforced, bring the rates for stores 
very low. If examination is made of the rates of any store 
in Haverhill as actually paid, and then the rates for the same 
service in other places, the charges in Haverhill will be found 
as low as in any place, and below most of the tariffs. They 
are made uniform, and are controlled as nearly as experience 
will guide, by the probable amount of water consumed. A 
store generally pays five dollars, with five dollars for a water- 
closet; where there are very many persons employed, the rate 
is made accordingly; and, where hose and other fixtures are 
used, the rates are added. In manufacturing establishments 
and workshops the contrast is more marked. In many places, 
meter-rates govern ; and this company is always ready to put 
them in. Lowell, Lawrence, and Springfield are taken, be¬ 
cause they offer similar conditions ; namely, manufactories 
and workshops filled with men. It is not possible to compare 
with Lynn, because the water in such cases is taken at meter- 


33 


rates. A contractor’s shop will serve for as fair a standard 
as any. Take the shop of Mr. Alderman Frost. He employs 


a hundred men. 

By the Lowell rates he would pay.$100.00 

44 “ Lawrence rates he would pay . . . .100.00 

“ “ Springfield “ “ “ “ . . . 75.00 

“ “ Haverhill “ “ pays . . . . 25.00 


HOSE. 

The unfair statement of this subject by the petitioners 
was adroitly contrived, and is to be condemned without 
qualification. It is classed as 44 Hose for sprinkling streets, 
and garden use.” It is enough to say that this was not 
,honestly put, and must have been known. Every one of the 
petitioners knows that the charge for hose for streets and for 
gardens are separate charges. They know that the price for 
garden-hose is five dollars, and not ten dollars, because they 
have regularly paid it. Dr. Nichols and Mr. John P. Gilman, 
near neighbors, using a garden-hose, had no right to misrep¬ 
resent the facts. Inasmuch as the latter has, nearly every 
summer, kept his hose running all day during the hot weather, 
it may have occurred to him that he ought to pay more; and 
we think he ought. If he thinks the water in Haverhill is 
running to waste, a little economy practised at home would 
show a disposition to assist in saving water. 

The rate for hose for sprinkling streets is a special rate, 
and is recognized as high. But it is not desirable that hose 
should be used for this purpose; and it is discouraged, in 
order that the greater and more general benefaction of 
sprinkling by the water-carts may go on. This is a purely 
individual enterprise, where the municipality does nothing; 
and the company does not feel that it would be justified in 
any competition. Furthermore, this $10 rate has never been 
collected by the company: and the use of garden-hose for 
occasional sprinkling the streets where the water-carts do not 
go, has been thus far tolerated, perhaps unwisely; as such 
use of water is extravagant, and the petitioners do not seem 
inclined to leniency. 


34 





CITY WATER-RATES. 

Here, as in all of the recitals of figures submitted to you 
by the committee of the petitioners, the items have been so 
garbled and arranged as to mislead the reader. The cheat 
here is, that the receipts are made to read so that the infer¬ 
ence is, that $2,045.38 was received for water. 

The amount actually paid for water in 1883 was $1,233, 
and not $2,045.38. The remaining items on the list given on 
a previous occasion were not for water, as could have been 
easily learned by inquiry. Here are items of money paid for 
work hired by the city for repairs done to its own hydrants, 
and for labor of various kinds, deliberately inserted, and called 
“ remarkable water-taxes.” The sense of fairness seems to be 
entirely lost to this man. The item of $400 was at a former 
time carefully, explained to these petitioners when on their 
regular pilgrimage to the State House; but with singular 
obtuseness, or bluntness of conscience, it is still charged to 
“water.” It is interest on a sum of money advanced and 
expended by the company for a special purpose, and by virtue 
of a contract in writing duly executed, voluntarily entered 
into by the city, and sought at its own motion, which the 
city can terminate at any time by carrying out its provisions. 
The contract was highly favorable to the city, and was made 
when certain improvements were contemplated, and was a 
substitute for a project of great expense; and, in conse¬ 
quence, there was a saving of at least $5,000 in money. The 
city has had the continuous use of the pipes and water, and 
the arrangement has been an advantage to the city. 

The exact amount which will be paid by the city for water , 
on account of regular water-supply, and with the present 
fixtures, in the year 1884, is as follows: — 


Water for street-troughs 

. $410.00 

<< 

“ drinking-fountains 

25.00 

(< 

“ City Hall . 

50.00 

n 

“ Library 

25.00 

<< 

“ engine-houses 

70.00 

u 

“ city-stables . 

33.00 

i< 

“ High School 

.100.00 

u 

“ Winter-street School . 

50.00 

< t 

“ Portland-street School 

50.00 

u 

“ Currier School . 

50.00 








35 


Water for Broad way-street School 


110.00 

50.00 

15.00 

20.00 

55.00 


“ School-street School 
“ John-street School 
“ Old High School. 


“ all other schools . 


$1,043.00 


The rates for the schoolhouses are nominal. The company 
would willingly supply them at meter-rates, if the city in¬ 
sisted. Only one of these items has been criticised ; namely, 
that relating to the High-school building. The critic is 
probably not aware that the building is crammed with 
inmates. Besides the High-school attendance, there are two 
grammar schools and a large primarjr school there. The 
evening and evening-drawing schools occupy the building, 
and the frequent night sessions of the city school committee 
are held at the same place. There are a great many water- 
closets in the building. In Lowell, where the water is 
furnished to the High School at meter-rates, with no pos¬ 
sibility of consuming as much water as in Haverhill, the 
cost per annum is $100 for water, actually measured, and 
paid for at standard rates. This trifling sum, paid to the 
company, is not without its corresponding and balancing 
redit received. It is not all on one side. A corporation tax 
is c fllected by the Commonwealth, and a large part of it 
credited to the city on account of its proportion of the State 
tax; and, also, the improved property and machinery of the 
water-company contributes its share of local taxation. This 
year there will be paid about $4,500 in taxes; and the city 
will receive much more than it will pay back, on account of 
the existence of the company. Thus the revenue regularly 
received is more than the amount paid to the company, and 
the cost of water is virtually nothing. The locality of the 
owners of the property does not affect the company’s taxes. 
Their property here is subject to the local assessor: and the 
shares of the company are taxed by the State in the same 
way as shares of railroad, gas-companies, and other corpora¬ 
tions: and Mr. Ward B. Haseltine, so unjustly traduced with 
the other individuals in the company, is mulcted in taxes for 
exactly as much as Mr. James H. Carleton, who is a resident 
proprietor, and, in addition, is assessed at home on account 
of this investment. 







36 


Nor is this all, for the balance of credit for the company is 
further increased by the 

FIRE-SERVICE. 

The city of Haverhill is to be congratulated for the present 
water-service for fire at her command. It is simple in con¬ 
struction, and superbly efficient in execution. Connected 
with the high service of the company, — a section of the 
works successfully operated from the first, and an ever¬ 
present answer to the dismal carping and ignorant prophecies 
of this new light on water-questions, — it arouses the ad¬ 
miration of every appreciative person who witnesses its 
operation. There is probably no system exactly like it. Un¬ 
connected with any part of the aqueduct system, the whole 
power of an immense volume of water rushing through the 
large mains' can be directed with precision and irresistible 
effectiveness. It supplies the place of a number of costly 
steam fire-engines. It is considered a most remarkable ar¬ 
rangement for its intended purposes. With the adoption of 
the plan, and its completion, came the liberal donation of the 
company of its conduit, bringing the water to the main, 
the constant pressure night and day of this powerful stream, 
the services of men, and the power of engines to maintain it 
through any demands for its use. To have possessed all this 
would have cost the city many thousand dollars of outlay over 
and above the price lor distribution-pipes, on account of con¬ 
duits, pumping-station, engines, and the necessary comple¬ 
ments, and an annual expense of a large sum to support it. 
By the liberality of the company, the whole business interest 
of the city is thus amply protected, without any yearly ex¬ 
pense of taxation or appropriation; and, beyond the repairs to 
the pipes of the city, there is absolutely no burden to be pro¬ 
vided for. It is a gift cheerfully bestowed; and it is not 
creditable to the petitioners, that, in their zeal for points of 
attack, they have only churlish and abusive words, and can¬ 
not utter the faintest whisper of commendation, — something 
thus far confined to the lips of strangers. 

TAXATION AS AN INCIDENT CONNECTED WITH RATES. 

A person who pretends and announces, that, by careful ex¬ 
amination and study of water-companies for a period cover- 


87 


ing a large share of the length of life allotted to man, he has 
mastered their peculiar details and mysteries, cannot have 
overlooked the relations of the tax-payeis to municipal water¬ 
works, and the substantial influence of taxes upon water-rates. 
He pretentiously comes before you, equipped with information 
obtained by extensive investigation at home and abroad, and 
ostentatiously presents the heaped-up documents of proof. 
It would seem that the most heedless observer would have 
noticed that taxation was an important factor. He entirely 
ignores the burdens of taxation annually borne by cities, on 
account of deficiencies in water-rents, to meet interest, main¬ 
tenance, construction, water for public purposes, etc. Here 
is the real mouse in the meal. A candid spirit, unless ani¬ 
mated by the bitterest hostility, would have admitted it; and 
it is impossible to suppose that the omission was accidental, 
or was overlooked by this ardent student of water-theories 
and water-literature. The conviction is unavoidable, that 
the subject has been purposely and dishonestly avoided, in the 
hope of failure of detection, and the intention of leading the 
public astray, or that he has but a superficial knowledge of 
the contents of the documents he offers which quite unfits him 
to advise the tax-payers in these matters. Throughout, there 
has been a Mississippi of delusion, with but a rivulet of can¬ 
dor and fairness. It is by just such incapacity, and such reck¬ 
less assumptions as these, that municipalities have been in¬ 
duced to plunge into extravagant and costly experiments, and 
in consequence, like the beautiful city of Elizabeth, N.J., have 
become bankrupt and a reproach, their real estate hardly 
worth the taxes; private property has been taken to satisfy 
the public creditor, and the county sheriff has supplanted the 
tax-collector; and in place of industry and thrift are vacant 
houses and stores, and impassable streets; the decayed 
public works alone remaining, out of which reckless pecu¬ 
lators had enriched themselves. It is submitted, however, 
that more could not have been expected of one, who, in a 
public place, offers a six-months’ water-bill which suits his 
purpose, and deliberately suppresses the bills for the balance 
of the year which would disclose the truth. Another striking 
instance will appear farther on. 

It has been heretofore shown, that the water-departments 
of most cities and towns annually present to those who must 


88 


pay the bills, an increased indebtedness. Every year the bal¬ 
ance is against them ; and, for a long time to come, it is un¬ 
questionable that the public charge must be a constant drain 
on the tax-payer. The increase to the debt is kept down by 
the direct appropriations, which assist in making the volume 
of the income. Every year the Legislature is called upon 
to provide special legislation to enable cities and towns to 
make an additional water-loan. In these places, the water- 
bill is found upon the books of the water-registrar and the 
tax-collector. The additional load is by no means light, and 
bears, not alone upon those who receive the immediate bene¬ 
fit of a water-service, but upon the non water-taker as well, 
whether they reside in some secluded spot or outlying dis¬ 
tricts not easily accessible, as in places like Haverhill, where 
there are many inhabitants of the parishes and outlying dis¬ 
tricts who cannot enjoy the facilities offered to those in the 
more populous centre. In making appropriations for public 
improvements, it would be well to remember there are few 
places in New England of the size of Haverhill, where the 
property is so evenly distributed, and the aggregate wealth so 
small. With a valuation of only 813,000,000, a tax of 8100,000 
would be more of a hardship than a tax of 8200,000 in our 
neighboring cities of Lawrence, Lowell, and Salem. Appro¬ 
priations are made for many objects connected with the 
water-supply, and the incomes are largely fictitious because 
of the large amounts paid to itself by the city. This is a 
method of merely transferring from one pocket to another 
the money which first is taken from the tax-payer. If the 
entire income was real', and every thing spent was taken 
from the income, in order to be self-sustaining, the rates 
would be, of necessity, much higher than at present. 

How this is done, and what a city really pays to itself, may 
be seen by the following explanation and example. There are 
paid to the water-department large sums for water for public 
purposes, particularly in the fire-department. In Haverhill, 
water for fire-service costs nothing. In Manchester, each 
fire-hydrant is charged 860, making an item of 820,940 ; in 
Taunton, 830 per hydrant; in Concord, 850 per hydrant; in 
Lewiston, 840 per hydrant; in Cambridge it has ranged from 
810 to 830. In Springfield, 820. 

By the auditors’ report of the city of Cambridge in 1883, 


39 


Cambridge appropriated and raised by direct taxation $24,- 
687.59, including four per cent on a note of the city for 
$200,000, added to the sinking-fund, for water for public 
uses; and this sum, exclusive of the interest, was credited 
to income. By the addition of the new supply from Stony 
Brook, costing nearly $1,000,000, the annual charge will be 
increased $35,000. By careful examination, it is learned that 
sums were raised as follows: — 

Lowell, each year by direct taxation, about . . $80,000.00 

Fall River, a large sum each year. 

“ “ in 1883 . 54,000.00 

Lawrence, “ . 97,848.63 

And each year not far from that sum. 

Brockton, in 1884, appropriated $5,000 for public service; 
and this sum was more than one-half of the water-income. In 
Newton a large sum is raised in the same way. In some of 
these cases, an appropriation is included for the water sinking- 
fund ; but the increased debt keeps pace with the sinking- 
fund. This will be found to be a general course. In the 
case of Salem, the rate per thousand to make up the de¬ 
ficiency required was $3.25, which, with the difference in 
valuation, would be, in Haverhill, at the rate of $6.50 per 
thousand ; and a table below is calculated on that basis. 

Of course, if the works could be had for nothing, or a 
mere nominal cost, the case would be very different. But 
no one fancies for a moment that the Aqueduct Company 
will fail to receive what its property is worth. It is idle and 
puerile nonsense to say that any thing like the basis suggested 
can or ever will be adopted. 

A very careful and precise computation has been made of 
the effect on our present taxation, in case there should be 
added to the regular appropriation either of the sums referred 
to below; and there are submitted tables to show the result. 
They include individuals living in or near the centre of 
the city, and also living at a distance, or in the parishes, and 
who do not pay for water. The tables indicate what their 
whole water-bill now is for all of their property, including 
their personal rate and the rates of their tenants, and what 
amount would be added by taxation for water. The cities 
selected are those used for comparison by the petitioners, and 
the tables illustrate what the effect would be upon the annual 


40 


taxes if it were necessary to provide by taxation any con¬ 
siderable sum for water-purposes. 

(1) The total levy of the city of Haverhill in 1883 was 
1199,500 ; tax-rate, $17.48. If this rate were increased $6.50 
per $1,000, the tax-rate would be $23.98. 


WATER-TAKERS. 


Now pay for 

water. —Total 

Names. 

J Increase by taxa¬ 

tion for water. 

Payments with 
tax added.—Total. 

$40.00 

James R. Nichols .... 

$461.50 

$501 50 

441.00 

J. J. Marsh. 

747.50 

1,188.50 

179.00 

J. P. Gilman. 

563.03 

742.03 

64.00 

A. A. Sargent. 

432 25 

496 25 

418 00 

J. B. Nichols. 

1,040.00 

1,458.00 

22.00 

C. W. Chase. 

191.75 

213.75 

500.00 

A. P. Jaques & Co. . . . 

625.74 

1,125.74 

281.00 

S. D. Maynard . 

269.42 

550.42 

265.00 

Richard Webster .... 

342.52 

607.52 

221.00 

C. W. Chase & Co . 

361.49 

582.49 


NON WATER-TAKERS. 



Names. 

Addition to 
present tax by 
taxation on 
account of water. 

o 

Gyles Merrill. 

$117.00 

4- 

C. N. Hoyt. 

57.20 

bJD 

= 

William D. Brickett . . . 

19 50 

1c ® 

Daniel Brickett. 

13.00 


James D. White * . . . 

172.25 


Jeremiah Bennett f . . . 

97.50 

rt* 

O. T. Emerson .... 

26 00 

Q. 

Daniel Webster . . . 

26.00 


* *18 on tenement in city. t *35 on tenement in city. 


(2) If $80,000 were paid by tax, as in Lowell, the rate 
would be $24.52, an increase of $7.04; and total levy 
1279,500. • J 


















































41 


WATER-TAKERS. 


Now pay for 

water. —Total. 

Names. 

Increase by taxa¬ 
tion for water. 

Payments with 

tax added.—Total. 

#40.00 

James R Nichols . . . . 

#499.84 

#539.84 

441.00 

J. J. Marsh. 

809.60 

1,250.60 

179.00 

J. 1 J . Gilman. 

609.80 

788 80 

64 00 

A. A Sargent. 

468.16 

532 16 

418.00 

J. B Nichols. 

1,126.40 

1,544 40 

22 00 

C W Chase. 

207 68 

229.68 

500.00 

A P. Jaques & Co. . . . 

677 71 

1,177.71 

281.00 

S D Maynard. 

291.80 

572 80 

265 00 

Richard Webster .... 

370.98 

635.98 

221 00 

C. VV. Chase & Co. 

391.52 

612.52 


NON WATER-TAKERS. 



Names. 

Addition to 
present lax by 
taxation on 
account of water. 

2 *. 

Gyles Merrill. 

#126.72 

o 

H— 

C. N. Hoyt. 

61 95 

w> . 

William D. Brickett. 

21.12 

Z £ 

Daniel Brickett. 

14.08 

o > 

James D. White*. 

186.56 

C £ 

Jeremiah Bennett f . 

105 60 


O. T. Emerson. 

28.16 

CL 

Daniel Webster. 

28.16 


* $18 on tenement in city. 


f $35 on tenement in city. 


(3) If $97,848, the sum raised in Lawrence by a tax, should 
be added, the total levy would be $297,348; and the total 
rate would be $26.18, an increase of $8.70. 

WATER-TAKERS. 


Now pay for 
water.— Total. 

Names. 

Increase by taxa¬ 
tion for water. 

Payments with 

tax added.—Total. 

#40.00 

James R. Nichols .... 

#617.70 

#657.70 

441 00 

J. J. Marsh. 

1,000 50 

1,441.50 

179.00 

J. P. Gilman. 

753.59 

932 59 

64.00 

A. A. Sargent . 

578.55 

642 55 

418.00 

J. B. Nichols. 

1,392 00 

1,810 00 

22.00 

C. W. Chase. 

256.65 

278 65 

500.00 

A. P. Jaques & Co. . . . 

837.52 

1,337.52 

281.00 

S. D. Maynard . 

360.61 

641.61 

265 00 

Richard Webster . . . ^ 

458.45 

723.45 

221.00 

C. W. Chase & Co. ... 

483 85 

704.85 
































































42 


NON WATER-TAKERS. 



Names. 

Addition to 
present tax by 
taxation on 
account of water. 


Gyles Merrill. 

$156.60 

£ 

C. N. Hoyt. 

76.56 

bD . 

William D. Brickett. 

26.10 

J £ 

Daniel Brickett. 

17.40 

° > 

James D. White*. 

230.55 

c > 

Jeremiah Bennett f . 

130.50 

rt 

O. T. Emerson. 

34.80 

0. 

Daniel Webster. 

34.80 


* $18 on tenement in city. 


t $35 on tenement in city. 


THE WISDOM OF CAMBRIDGE. — A BRILLIANT EXAMPLE! 

It is asserted that Cambridge has acted wisely; and so far 
as that case has been stated to you, for the purposes of ex¬ 
ample, this practical illustration will be examined. Clearly, 
the gentleman who brought out this instance as a case which 
should influence you, has here demonstrated, either that he 
has been a superficial reader, or is an incompetent aqueduct 
expert. This was outrageously contrived to delude. The 
statement was, that, first assuming a convenient basis, if 
the city had owned the aqueduct, “ it would have placed in the 
city treasury $320,000 in clean money, — a sum sufficient to 
have paid for the aqueduct plant, and discharged more than 
one-half of the present city debt.” 

These results will astonish a large majority of water- 
takers, and all who have given the important matter of the 
water-supply no special study or consideration; but it is no 
more than what has been actually accomplished by the city 
of Cambridge. In 1865, two years prior to 1867, when 
Haverhill should have taken control of the aqueduct, Cam¬ 
bridge bought of a private company the aqueduct that 
supplied that city with water, and paid for it $291,400. 
Since the purchase, this amount has been paid from the 
surplus-revenue fund of the water-supply, and $55,000; and 
the city had invested in securities Dec. 1, 1883, additional 
sinking-funds amounting to $696,896.95. This is an in¬ 
structive record. Cambridge has acted more wisely than 
Haverhill, as regards its water-supply” (pp. 33, 31, of argu¬ 
ment). 




















43 


The obvious intent was to attach a meaning and conclusion 
to this statement, that Cambridge had purchased of a pri¬ 
vate company its privilege, had thus secured an aqueduct, 
had paid for it out of the 44 surplus revenue,” together with 
an additional sum paid from the same source, and had put 
aside a large sinking-fund, with the presumption, that this 
latter sum was a saved earning, to be used in extinguishing 
the municipal debt. It had all come from the “surplus 
revenue,” had wiped out the cost, which appeared to stand 
as entirely paid, and something handsome had been accom¬ 
plished besides. It was a most adroit perversion of facts, and 
suppression of essential and vital data. Allowed to go with¬ 
out comment, and left to stand undisputed, the plain inference 
would be as pointed out. The deception was well-nigh 
perfect. 

The exact facts, fortunately, can be easily verified; and 
all the necessary official documents are at hand for the 
committee. 

In 1865 Cambridge bought an aqueduct, then much in¬ 
ferior to the present Haverhill system, with twelve miles of 
pipe (Haverhill has thirty), for 8291,480. The city held a 
mortgage on it for $50,000. After the purchase, the rates 
were immediately raised by the city. In 1869 the cost of the 
works amounted to $828,100.69, in 1872 to $1,030,384.86 ; and 
Dec. 1, 1883, the total cost of the Cambridge Aqueduct was 
$1,751,344.97, with a balance of debt unprovided for and yet 
to be paid of $926,603.50 above the value of the sinking- 
fund. Very large sums of money had been raised during 
this time for various water-purposes. The sinking-fund 
had been largely accumulated by a forced process, as the 
law required a certain sum to be added to it yearly. r lhe 
amount paid by the city for public purposes has varied; but 
it is believed that $25,000 would be less than the annua 
average, and this average would make the sum of $475,000 in 
nineteen years paid by taxes to make up an income. The 
sinking-fund Dec. 1,1883, amounted to $496,896.95; but there 
was to be added to it a note of the city for $200,000, with in¬ 
terest at four per cent, principal and interest to be raised 
from taxes, but the note not to be paid in whole or in part 
until every other means of payment fail. No jugglery of 
words can affect the facts once brought out; and, in a pro- 


44 


ceeding like this, the abuse of an example in such a manner 
as this cannot be too strongly condemned. The revelation 
of the facts as they exist in the instance of Cambridge does 
not warrant the use which has been made of this brilliant 
example. 

A table similar to those preceding is submitted, illustrating 
the effect on water-rates by taxation, if the city paid to the 
Aqueduct Company the same amount which is paid by the 
city of Cambridge for water for public purposes. 

If this sum was $24,687, the amount raised in Cambridge 
by taxation by the public rates of 1883, the total levy would 
be $224,187: the total rate per $1,000 would be $19.66, an 
increase of $2.18. This is the smallest amount used for a 
comparison, and it is very probable that a like amount under 
the most favorable conditions would be required. 


WATER-TAKERS. 


Now pay for 

water. — Total. 

^ AMES. 

Increase by taxa¬ 
tion for water. 

Would pay for 
water. —Total. 

$40.00 

James R. Nichols .... 

$154 78 

$194 78 

441 00 

J. J. Marsh. 

250 70 

691 70 

179 00 

J. P. Gilman. 

188.83 

367.83 

64.00 

A. A. Sargent. 

144.97 

208.97 

418 00 

J. B. Nichols . 

348 80 

766.80 

22.00 

C. W. Chase . 

64 31 

86.31 

500 00 

A. P. Jaques & Co . . . . 

209 86 

709.86 

281.00 

S. D. Maynard . 

90.36 

371.36 

265 00 

Richard Webster .... 

114.87 

379.87 

221.00 

C. W. Chase & Co . 

121.24 

342 24 


NON WATER-TAKERS. 



c 


>1 

0 . 


Names. 


Gyles Merrill . . . 

C. N. Hoyt . . . . 

William D. Brickett . 
Daniel Brickett . . 

James D. White*. . 
Jeremiah Bennett f . 
O. T. Emerson . . 

Daniel Webster . . 


Addition to 
present tax by 
taxation on 
account of water. 


$39.24 
19.18 
6.54 
4 36 

57.70 

32.70 
8.72 
8 72 


$18 on tenement in city. 


t $35 on tenement in city. 

















































45 


CONCLUSION. 

Daring the period of its existence, the company has not 
been guilty of any oppressive acts. The checks upon it have 
been both moral and legal. The right of the city to buy it 
at any time, and the power of the law of the land, were 
restraint enough, if any were needed. It has not been its 
particular mission to encourage other business enterprises, it 
is true ; but that it has militated against the interests or 
thrift of the city, the citizens of Haverhill will not believe. 
Obviously, the growth of Haverhill was the prosperity of the 
company. The plausible story of a petitioner, that he was 
driven across the river by the company to erect a hat-factory, 
fails from inherent weakness. When that gentleman sought 
a bargain, it is perhaps unnecessary to state that he did not 
give away or lose grasp of the best end of the proposition ; 
and, if he went to Bradford solely to get water cheaper, it is 
difficult to perceive how water could be taken at less ex¬ 
pense from the Merrimack on the Bradford shore than on 
the Haverhill side. At that time, there was ample room on 
River Street for factories. Reasons for selfish preference in 
the course taken are easier given, such as cheaper land, abated 
'or reduced taxes, and railroad facilities. 

For about twenty years, out of a life of the company of 
eighty-two years, the active participants in this hearing have 
been sedulously engaged in annoying and abusing the indi¬ 
vidual owners of the company, and fomenting hostility against 
it. In 1867, 1880, and twice in 1884, the same names and 
faces, the same lieutenants under the same leader, have been 
clustered together, making factious contest. During its whole 
career, there have been no just complaints of wrongs endured 
or arbitrarily inflicted ; and with a drag-net sweeping the com. 
munity for four months, these zealous enemies do not produce 
a single poor man with a tale of abuse or oppression, and not a 
single act is pointed out by which the company has caused 
the slightest wrong or harm to any citizen in any walk in 
life. There is no array of complainants here. There is only 
a small knot of malecontents. Some petty grievances or dis¬ 
torted tales are spitefully recited by this little band of persist¬ 
ent foes, of unsuccessful bargains or personal woes. They 
are well understood. This is a sufficient reply to the charge 
that the company has committed such acts, and pursued such 


a course, that it has lost the respect of the community where 
it exists, and which it serves. 

It is believed that the company has demonstrated a course 
and management giving to the community more liberal and 
satisfactory service, with better , purer , and cheaper water , as a 
whole, than can be found anywhere else. The company has 
loyally and honorably respected its franchise, and fulfilled its 
obligations. If it has violated them, the tribunals of the 
Commonwealth and the General Court have been open to 
those who had occasion to seek redress. Although enduring 
much from anonymous attacks and ambuscades, this is the 
only responsible indictment which the company has been 
called to plead to — a presentment indeed faulty throughout, 
and formidable only for its deceptions and virulence. 





■ 










. 

* 
































- 




















■ 



















































































































































































































































‘ 



























































































































































































































































\p 9 


* ** % \ 


> • » 



VV 


o V 


<* %. '«».* 

c ® * • * ^ ^*p <r <l • 11 * * *"o a^ v c 0 " ° ♦ 



0* 







♦ V r 

V> '' 1 ’ <* 

<•*. V V *•** 

cfi '^o o 

** <t.V ^ ^ 

^ • * aO'* <£, '« . ** A . . ,,. _ 

.6^ 4 • k * * ♦ ^b J> % o o * « * 'V . 11 * * 

C u o <j* V C° ♦% ' °- 


uA 


I0| 



*b V* 0 




> v * » • °* 


o 

CV •*' r ‘ A ^y' r5 * a 
o * o rr 

'* <^ <0 'y> V t * VV'* cv .<y 

V ; -i§- v •£& \/ ■ 

4 fc * »§?* ,< 5 ^ .v^ 

* <£* *6 * * W* & oVJS$\N* aV ’>* • 

A <> <* 'TTT* g t o \ < +yv* * 

^ ,0 V *O A^ C*" 0 * ^ 

A . ■SSslrC» >r. . & *W%l% ° ,0 , \*5$SW. *%. 

* -^SSSI*- **A 'd5wz?^. v 0 ^ ^ 






.• *° ■%. 

-*.T.** .0° 'V *'...• 0 

• • \ /.-•"•-• ' ^ 

.t™«xxv^- ^ V^’ 

,* A? ^ ^ '.«0IP.‘ A s ^ 

•• a g , <v o?rf*' v -... 

,*0 V c • U J/ -» o, A^ 6 0 " tf <* ^ r>^ . 1 ‘ • ♦ ^O 

^ c J* .■^Xti'V- C° Z~^C- °o v 

•A ^ .«?^Pl- <9^ jV 






* ® “ 0 ° A?' 

*- V A- 9 .•'*•■ 


v v ... 

; * 

.* 4> v <#« v52§§?.‘ A? »■. «?• -^c . 

k * V s " *' •. * * ,6* o "o. » <* * ^ *♦, 

,-i 4, ,o^ .•“*♦ ^o A> *• r 

%. ^ 9-a' ' «rv ^ 




A ^ • 

* <*P v c> . 

—,-r > • 

. * ,o 



>“ 5-° ^ 

o^.o° **.**%,, ^ 

‘ * • '. V ,ry ..... .V 

..«•«**. ;m/A- >.a' 




A ^ O 

+ <ip o 

' V +. 


p yj^- ®o ^ -^4“*' V f o» "b s ^ 

”ov + 

^° •V V 




so 



^ °o 

% '••** .<V .... 

°.. A .*3sssw. \ o° 





•* A -» 


O v 
: *o <7* 


_. r. : 

O '<>*** A <. 

0 V 4s.^ ••■•>! ^ 

» *y v 



*.W.‘ . $ 

XS '» . . * ,<\ 

^o <4> .•••. ^ 


* - 
♦ ♦* ^ 


■* <i. v '(I* * ^ 4 

* <6^ -0.4- A w 

.O^ . • V ' * ♦ A G 0 " 0 4 <$ 

















